appropriate

Attorney/Recommendations

Patent Attorney

Name:  Junzo WATANABE

Registration No.:  11683 (registered in 2000)

Education:   

  Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kumamoto University

  Department of Law, Faculty of Law, Chuo University

Recommendations

■1) Nobuatsu Watanabe [Title: Professor Emeritus of Kyoto University, Doctor of Engineering; Award: The Chemical Society Japan Award (1980), Purple Ribbon Medal (Shijuhosho) (1987), etc.]

Mr. Inoue, the Senior Partner, is my former student. He has both excellent linguistic ability and excellent expertise. The staff of Inoue & Associates are well-trained by Mr. Inoue, and the high quality services provided by Mr. Inoue and his staff are self-explanatory from the documents made by them. From my experience, I firmly believe that they will help you to promptly and surely acquire intellectual property rights, based on adequate judgment made by fully utilizing their professional skills in combination with their rich experience in pursuit of patent rights in many countries for many years.

■2) Hidefumi Hirai [Title: Professor Emeritus of The University of Tokyo, Doctor of Engineering; Award: The Chemical Society Japan Award (1984), etc.]

Mr. Inoue, the Senior Partner, and his staff are familiar with foreign patent laws and patent practices. Further, the quality of their services based on accurate understanding of technical background and excellent linguistic ability is prominent in this business. In addition, Mr. Inoue already has his appropriate successor and I, therefore, trust Inoue & Associates for their excellent procedures of filing patent applications through reliable prosecutions for grant of patents.

《拒絶理由通知、特許査定》

拒絶理由通知(和英)

原文:

 

拒絶理由通知書

特許出願の番号      特願2009-XXXXXX

起案日          平成21年XX月XX日

特許庁審査官       XX XX        3409 2J00

特許出願人代理人     XX XX 様

適用条文         第29条第2項

 

 この出願は、次の理由によって拒絶をすべきものです。これについて意見がありましたら、この通知書の発送の日から60日以内に意見書を提出してください。

理 由

 

 この出願の下記の請求項に係る発明は、その出願前日本国内又は外国において頒布された下記の刊行物に記載された発明又は電気通信回線を通じて公衆に利用可能となった発明に基いて、その出願前にその発明の属する技術の分野における通常の知識を有する者が容易に発明をすることができたものであるから、特許法第29条第2項の規定により特許を受けることができない。

記 (引用文献等は引用文献等一覧参照)

 ・請求項6 に対して 引用文献1,2

  請求項6には、「請求項1の方法を実施するために用いるシステムであって」と記載されているが、この記載は、システムの構成を限定するものではない。

 引用文献1には、被検査体の内部を減圧し、超音波を用いて被検査体の内圧を測定し、漏洩孔の有無を検査する装置が開示されている。

 そして、引用文献2には、圧力を超音波の位相差に基づいて測定する構成が開示されており、また、どのような手法により圧力を測定するかは、当業者が適宜選択すべき事項である。

 してみれば、引用文献1に記載の発明において、引用文献2に記載の圧力測定を採用することで、本願請求項6に係る発明とすることは、当業者にとって容易に想到し得ることである。

 よって、引用文献1,2に記載の発明に基いて、本願請求項6に係る発明とすることは、当業者にとって容易に想到し得ることである。


<拒絶の理由を発見しない請求項>

 請求項1-5に係る発明については、現時点では、拒絶の理由を発見しない。

拒絶の理由が新たに発見された場合には拒絶の理由が通知される。

引 用 文 献 等 一 覧

1.特開2004-XXXXX号公報

2.特開2002-XXXXXX号公報

------------------------------------

先行技術文献調査結果の記録

・調査した分野  IPC G01M3/00-3/40

             G01L11/00-11/06

・先行技術文献 

  特開2006-XXXXX号公報

  特開昭60-XXXXXX号公報

 この先行技術文献調査結果の記録は、拒絶理由を構成するものではない。

 この拒絶理由通知の内容に関するお問い合わせ、または面接のご希望がございましたら下記までご連絡下さい。

特許審査第1部 材料分析  XXXX

TEL.03(XXXX)XXXX 内線XXXX

 

英訳文:

Notification of Reasons for Refusal

Patent Application No.:    2009-XXXXXX

Drafting Date:   XXXXXX, 2009

Examiner:   XXXXXXX         3409 2J00

Agent for Applicant:  XXXXX XXXXXXX

Articles of the Patent Law applied to: Article 29, item 2

     The present application should be rejected for the following reasons.  A response to this notification, if any, should be filed within 60 days from the date of mailing of this notification. 

REASONS

     The invention of the below-mentioned claim of the present application could be easily made by those having ordinary skill in the art, based on either an invention described in the below-mentioned publications which were distributed prior to the filing date of the present application in Japan or in a foreign country or an invention which became available to the public through electric telecommunication lines prior to the filing date of the present application.  Therefore, the invention of the below-mentioned claim of the present application should not be patented under Article 29, item 2 of the Patent Law.

NOTE (References cited herein are listed below)

• Claim 6  -  to be rejected over References 1 and 2

     Claim 6 has a description reading: “a system for practicing the method of claim 1”.  However, this description does not limit the construction of the system.

     Reference 1 discloses an apparatus for performing a method comprising decompressing the inside of a test subject and measuring the internal pressure of the test subject by using an ultrasonic wave, to thereby determine the presence or absence of a leak hole.

     Reference 2 discloses a construction for measuring a pressure, based on a phase difference of ultrasonic waves.  Those having ordinary skill in the art may appropriately choose how to measure a pressure.

     Thus, it would be easy for those having ordinary skill in the art to use the pressure measurement technique of Reference 2 in the invention of Reference 1, to thereby make the invention of claim 6 of the present application.

     Therefore, based on the inventions of References 1 and 2, the invention of claim 6 of the present application would have been easily conceived by those having ordinary skill in the art.


     At present, there has been found no reason to reject claims 1 to 5.

     A further office action will be issued when there is found any reason to reject claims 1 to 5.

List of references cited

1.   Unexamined Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Specification No. 2004-XXXXX

2.   Unexamined Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Specification No. 2002-XXXXXX

--------------------------------------------------------------

Record of the results of the prior art search

• Field searched   IPC  G01M3/00-3/40

                           G01L11/00-11/06

• Prior art documents  

     Unexamined Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Specification No. 2006-XXXXX

     Unexamined Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Specification No. Sho 60-XXXXXX

      The above record of the prior art search does not constitute the reasons for rejection.

      If there is any question about the content of this notification of reasons for rejection or if an interview is desired, please contact the following person.

Examination Division 1, Materials Analysis, XXXXX XXXXX

TEL 03(XXXX)XXXX  Extension XXXX

 

特許査定(和英)

原文:

特許査定

特許出願の番号      特願2007-XXXXXX

起案日          平成20年 X月XX日

特許庁審査官       XX XX        9130 2B00

発明の名称        XXXXシステム

請求項の数         13

特許出願人        XXXX株式会社

 

 この出願については、拒絶の理由を発見しないから、特許査定をします。

 

部長/代理  審査長/代理 審査官    審査官補    分類確定官 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX     

1.出願種別        通常

2.参考文献        有

3.特許法第30条適用   無

4.発明の名称の変更    無

5.国際特許分類(IPC)

          A01G 31/00   606,
          A01G 27/00   502K,
          A01G 27/00   502L=
          A01G 13/00   302Z  

6.菌寄託

7.出願日の遡及を認めない旨の表示

参考情報

特許出願の番号      特願2007-XXXXXX 

1.調査した分野(IPC,DB名) 

 A01G  31/00
 A01G  27/00
 A01G  13/00     

2.参考特許文献

 特開2003-XXXXXX             (JP,A)
 特開2006-XXXXXX             (JP,A)    

3.参考図書雑誌

英訳文:

DECISION TO GRANT A PATENT

Patent Application No.: 2007-XXXXX

Drafting Date:          XXXXXX, 2008

Examiner:               XXXXXX XXXXXX, 9130 2B00

Title of the Invention: XXXXX system

Number of Claims:       13

Applicant:              XXXXX

 

No reason for rejection is found concerning the present application and, hence, a patent is granted.

 

(Acting) Division Manager   (Acting) Examiner-in-chief   Examiner   Assistant Examiner   Classification-finalizing officer  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX     

1.   Type of application                      General

2.   References                               Yes

3.   Application of Art. 30 of the Patent Law       No

4.   Change of Title of the Invention               No

5.   International Patent Classification (IPC)
                 A01G 31/00 606,
                 A01G 27/00 502K,
                 A01G 27/00 502L=
                 A01G 13/00 302Z 

6.   Depository of microorganisms

7.   Indication that the retroaction of the filing date is not permitted

Reference information

Patent Application No. 2007-XXXXXX

1.   Searched Field (IPC, DB name)
     A01G  31/00
     A01G  27/00
     A01G  13/00

2.   Reference patent document
     JP 2003-XXXXXX        (JP,A)
     JP 2006-XXXXXX        (JP,A)

3.   Reference literature/journal

タグ:

特許  出願  発明  日本  記載  提出  application  審査  拒絶  or  be  patent  先行技術  可能  請求項  出願人  特許出願  利用  審査官  開示  適用  Japan  方法  an  Patent  請求  Japanese  特許庁  外国  not  選択  filing  規定  with  通常  変更  情報  理由  filed  claim  拒絶理由  特許審査  先行技術文献  action  文献  date  Examination  at  意見書  技術  容易  one  引用  art  当業者  拒絶理由通知  特許法  採用  final  出願日  特許査定  invention  原文  present  調査  実施  claims  引用文献  any  内容  has  grant  prior  search  結果  office  30  通知  above  epo  file  been  英訳文  within  英訳  参照  代理人  Inter  分野  平成  限定  use  参考  issue  IP  may  phase  will  system  we  documents  should  method  under  made  29  事項  mentioned  results  構成  but  Article  having  Act  国内  inter  through  information  there  Application  based  Art  Prior  20  XXXXXX  would  so  ex  about  拒絶理由通知書  知識  foreign  following  31  時点  発見  和英  下記  re  特許法第  granted  publication  rejection  34  However  会社  comprising  Applicant  national  装置  意見  form  using  issued  International  想到  現時点  システム  XXXX  Therefore  further  out  XX  Invention  skill  希望  subject  Law  public  Ex  Search  Examiner  有無  either  XXXXX  遡及  question  Yes  person  日本国内  条第  00  do  PATENT  does  test  were  日以内  days  XXX  分析  response  刊行物  ep  those  21  Reference  make  side  国際特許  ordinary  A01G  Claim  reason  reasons  13  reference  50  40  available  番号  applied  document  cited  apparatus  difference  A01G  construction  条文  limit  Specification  country  name  below  11  references  rejected  her  found  測定  per  electric  Date  am  sea  inventions  item  Title  Claims  technique  term  his  herein  result  特開  連絡  notification  References  60  訳文  EC  本願請求項  described  description  could  調査結果  代理  以内  出願前  号公報  適宜選択  Open  pressure  reading  Laid  Unexamined  appropriate  表示  act  listed  There  lines  確定  hence  easily  特願  hereby  how  27  2007  特開昭  内部  特許文献  desired  発明又  day  exam  先行技術文献調査結果  Division  IPC  How  IPC  Assistant  Analysis  Thus  Type  記録  TEL  able  view  手法  名称  査定  over  please  perform  measuring  reject  measurement  国際  漏洩  分類  出願種別  利用可能  通信  起案日  超音波  JP  電気通信回線  302  2006  02  参考文献  公報  先行  特許庁審査官  圧力  被検査体  日本国  条適用  株式会社  oa  Reasons  Re  Refusal  mailing  absence  XXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  list  low  mm  read  publications  red  permitted  performing  presence  practicing  fr  forming  content  ed  discloses  easy  ip  became  invent  internal  concerning  inform  came  choose  Acting  Drafting  Dr  searched  try  Field  ultrasonic  Extension  An  Change  Classification  DE  GRANT  General  thereby 

Appeal against the Decision for Rejection

Q1. We understand that an Appeal can be filed against the Decision for Rejection.  What are the steps necessary for filing an Appeal?

A1.  Firstly, a Notice of Appeal, which is a formal document requesting the initiation of Appeal Proceedings, is filed by the deadline which is three months (for Applicants residing in Japan) or four months (for foreign Applicants) from the dispatch date of the Decision for Rejection. 

Further, any amendment  (if any) must be filed simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  (In the case of patent applications filed on or before March 31, 2007, divisional applications can be filed only simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  In the case of parent patent applications filed on or after April 1, 2007, divisional applications can be filed either before, simultaneously with or after the filing of the Notice of Appeal as long as it is before the expiration of the above-mentioned deadline for filing the Notice of Appeal.)  With respect to the amendment, please note that there is a restriction to the permissible claim amendments.  Please see section “Restriction to Permissible Claim Amendments after Final Rejection” for more details.

Next, any arguments, reference materials and/or experimental reports are filed as an Appeal Brief (i.e., Reasons for Appeal).  The Appeal Brief can be filed either simultaneously with the Notice of Appeal or after the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  When the Appeal Brief is not filed with the Notice of Appeal, the due date for filing the Appeal Brief will be set by the Japan Patent Office, and it is usually about 2 months from the filing date of the Notice of Appeal.

Q2. Is it possible to obtain any extension of deadline for filing the Notice of Appeal or the Appeal Brief?

A2.  No.  The deadlines for filing a Notice of Appeal and an Appeal Brief are non-extensible

Q3. Is it possible to submit new experimental data in the appeal stage?

A3.  Yes.  Any experimental data can be filed together with the Appeal Brief except that effectiveness of data may vary depending on the purpose of the data.

Submission of data for demonstrating novelty and/or inventive step of an invention over prior art is effective if the data itself is appropriate for this purpose; whereas data submitted at the appeal stage cannot compensate for the lack of enabling disclosure or lack of support in the specification, and such data are usually dismissed as late filed.

The Japanese patent system does not allow for applicants to establish the enabling disclosure requirement and/or supporting disclosure requirement through later-filed evidence. That is, these requirements must be satisfied by the patent application as filed, and later-filed data for making up the deficiency in this respect will not be admitted by the JPO.

Q4. Is there an opportunity to file additional amendments and/or divisional applications after the filing of the Notice of Appeal?

A4.  Concerning additional amendments after the filing of the Notice of Appeal, such additional amendments are admissible only when the applicant responds to a Notice of Rejection which may or may not be issued in the appeal stage.   That is, the applicant may not be given any opportunity to file an amendment after the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  Therefore, it is safer to consider that the time of filing of the Notice of Appeal is substantially the last chance to file amendments.

On the other hand, as mentioned in A1 above, in the case of patent applications filed on or after April 1, 2007, divisional applications may be filed even after the filing of the Notice of Appeal as long as it is before the expiration of the deadline for filing the Notice, i.e., three months (for Applicants residing in Japan) or four months (for foreign Applicants) from the dispatch date of the Decision for Rejection.

タグ:

application  or  be  patent  Japan  an  JPO  Patent  Japanese  not  filing  with  filed  Final  claim  Office  date  at  one  art  invention  after  any  Appeal  Notice  new  prior  applications  request  above  Rejection  epo  file  report  only  case  such  other  divisional  issue  may  months  will  system  more  under  specification  mentioned  all  non  must  We  necessary  amendment  Decision  through  there  A2  requirement  A1  applicant  step  against  so  amendments  ex  effective  about  possible  foreign  What  time  even  steps  re  parent  month  disclosure  end  residing  Q2  Q1  cannot  Applicant  April  before  Further  form  Applicants  issued  long  Therefore  out  simultaneously  either  Yes  Proceedings  do  permissible  year  Q3  does  A3  substantial  stage  usually  data  requirements  respect  formal  given  where  ep  obtain  later  Please  side  set  Claim  restriction  materials  material  reference  Brief  Q4  expiration  document  appeal  details  A4  Restriction  deadline  these  satisfied  her  per  pending  applicants  see  three  am  its  inventive  additional  addition  arguments  evidence  Permissible  his  March  extension  novelty  submitted  together  understand  Next  depending  require  ratio  appropriate  allow  There  lines  specific  Amendments  substantially  four  section  due  First  experimental  extensible  dispatch  day  Amendment  Concerning  amend  late  vary  making  self  up  itself  over  please  novel  purpose  support  submit  note  Reasons  Re  opportunity  low  With  fr  except  effect  establish  enabling  ed  invent  lack  An  Any  whereas  requesting  Firstly 

Utility Models

Q1. What are the differences between a patent and a utility model in Japan? 

A1.  The utility model system in Japan like in other countries having this system is for protecting minor innovations which are often called “small inventions”.

The distinct features of the utility model system are:  

     that a utility model registration is only for protecting “devices” related to shape or construction of articles or combination of articles (in other words, other inventions, such as methods, chemical compounds and pharmaceuticals, cannot be protected under utility model act);

     that a utility model is registered without substantive examination; and

     that a duration of a registered utility model is only 10 years from the filing date of the utility model application.

Differences between a patent and a utility model are summarized in the following Table.

  Patent Utility Model
Subject of protection Devices, methods, chemical compounds, etc. Devices related to shape or construction of articles or combination of articles (Methods, chemical compounds, etc. cannot be protected)
Application documents required Specification including Claims and Abstract; and, if any, Drawing(s) (optional) Specification including Claims and Abstract; and Drawing(s) (not omissible)
Substantive examination Request for Examination must be filed within 3 years from the filing date No substantive examination; Registered when basic formal requirements are fulfilled
Time period required for registration Possibly, several years from filing of the Request for Examination About 4-6 months from the filing date
Duration of protection 20 years from the filing date (may be extended in some cases) 10 years from the filing date (non-extensible)
Enforcement of right Enforceable based on granted patent Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion” is necessary for enforcing the utility model right

 

Q2. What is a “Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion”?

A2.  The Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion is an assessment report about the registrability (novelty, inventive step, etc.) of a utility model application or a registered utility model.  This report is prepared by an Examiner of the Japan Patent Office upon request and payment of official fees.  Anyone (that is, not only the Applicant of the utility model, but also any third party) can validly file a request for the Report.

As explained in item “A1” above, a utility model is registered without a substantive examination.  In this connection, for an owner of a utility model to enforce the utility model right against an infringer, firstly, a warning accompanied by the Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion must be sent to the infringer.  Therefore, the above-mentioned Report is necessary for instituting an infringement suit in Japan.

Q3. Is it possible to convert a patent application into a utility model application?

A3.  Yes.  Conversion of a patent application into a utility model application is allowed if an appropriate step is taken within 3 months (for Applicants residing in Japan) or 4 months (for Applicants residing outside Japan) from the mailing date of the Decision for Rejection, or within nine years and six months from the filing date of the patent application, whichever expires earlier.  Such a converted utility model application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original patent application, and the original patent application is deemed to be withdrawn.

Q4. Is it possible to convert a utility model application into a patent application?

A4.  Yes.  Conversion of a utility model application (or a registered utility model resulting therefrom) into a patent application is allowed if an appropriate step is taken within 3 years from the filing date of the utility model application.  However, it should be noted that such conversion is not allowed after the applicant (or an assignee) has filed a request for the above-mentioned Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion, or after a 30-day period has passed from the date of a first official notice advising that a third party has filed a request for the Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion.  Such a converted patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original utility model application, and the original utility model application is deemed to be withdrawn.  (Such a converted patent application cannot be converted back into a utility model application.)

タグ:

application  or  be  patent  Japan  an  Patent  not  filing  with  filed  period  Office  date  Examination  at  Request  one  art  rce  invention  after  any  has  grant  request  above  examination  utility  Rejection  epo  file  report  only  case  within  such  other  into  may  months  model  system  we  documents  should  method  under  between  mentioned  related  all  but  right  small  having  non  must  necessary  also  Decision  third  Report  there  registered  Application  based  A2  requirement  A1  applicant  step  against  Utility  so  ex  about  possible  following  What  registration  required  re  fee  granted  month  years  end  without  residing  However  Q2  Q1  party  cannot  Applicant  form  Applicants  prepared  cases  etc  Therefore  out  including  first  Technical  Ex  Examiner  Yes  allowed  differences  do  year  Q3  A3  conversion  requirements  formal  Method  some  ep  articles  protection  benefit  original  side  upon  Claim  infringement  like  Model  Q4  Opinion  article  document  distinct  difference  Reg  construction  A4  device  assignee  warning  Specification  combination  Such  country  basic  countries  notice  outside  extended  her  per  Table  am  inventions  item  inventive  Claims  back  his  result  often  order  nor  noted  novelty  payment  converted  valid  vice  words  compounds  require  ratio  deemed  ability  appropriate  methods  allow  adding  act  place  official  There  part  six  entitled  feature  fees  explained  extensible  devices  connection  day  ended  cells  exam  chemical  How  Subject  able  late  shape  up  own  omissible  minor  protected  protecting  novel  substantive  therefrom  taken  take  note  Re  mailing  accompanied  low  mm  red  passed  Mode  fr  fulfilled  force  convert  ed  earlier  invent  infringer  called  validly  Abstract  Drawing  Dr  suit  try  An  withdrawn  Conversion  Devices  several  Any  Difference 


お問い合わせ

Share | rss
ホームページ制作